If you know me at all, you know that I favor rational thought over traditionally-held beliefs pretty much exclusively. It's because of this that I never really hold much stock in what the so-called "Intelligent Design" movement says. Most of their energy goes into attempting to disprove a system they are scripturally-obligated not to believe -- evolution -- rather than providing any rational arguments for just what it is they're arguing for: that everything as we know it now was designed by someone intelligent, just not necessarily God.
I've pretty much dismissed out of hand that they could actually be right (which, I suppose, is no better than them dismissing my argument of "Couldn't an Intelligent Designer use a system of evolution as part of his design?"), but I've just encountered some new evidence that has completely blown me away. It seems like every other day the IDers present some new argument for just why the idea of evolution is more silly than that of an Intelligent Designer, none of which have had any impact at all on my sense of rationality. Until today.
This new argument, which I've dubbed "The Peanut-Butter and Banana Sandwich Conjecture," is pretty much irrefutable -- and, might I say, delicious as hell. But I digress. Consisting of two separate arguments, which I've presented below in video form for your convenience (and also for my convenience), the PB&B Sandwich Conjecture simply and concisely proves not only that life can't spontaneously happen, but that all life on earth is the result of a designer who made intelligent decisions about even the tiniest of details.
Now, as I'm sure you'll agree, each of those is somewhat compelling on its own, but the combination of the two is what really hammers the point home. Game, set and match.
As far as I know, I'm the first person to have combined these two lesser arguments into a single irrefutable one, so I'm now going to go ahead and take credit for proving that evolution is inferior to Intelligent Design as a theory.
It's been quite a journey... I, for one, would never have predicted that someone would prove the IDers to be right, let alone that it would be me. You might think that I'd feel bad about this sudden shift to the other side of the argument, but I don't; science is all about changing your argument in the face of new evidence, and the fact that I can do so with no qualms is just further testament to my abilities as a rational thinker. I'm now an IDer, and proud of it.
(All press inquiries regarding this ground-breaking theory should be directed at email@example.com)
A couple things real qucklike, since I am all tucked into bed and the nyquil is beginning to take effect.
1) People, you are still not treating the lines in parking lots as actual road lines. Stop pulling through parking spaces, do the correct thing and back out of it. You nearly ran me over twice at the grocery store. Hell, I was still partly in my car the first time! I had to quickly jump inside and yank my door closed to avoid being decapitated.
2) The gas station I bought gas from tonight claims that 'due to weather' they are all out of mortal gasoline, forcing me to buy the super-expensive Valhalla-grade instead. Sure, we did have pretty shitty weather like 3 days ago, but I think they're just scamming to get people to buy the premium.
At least they didn't say it was because those rebels prevented the USA PATRIOT act from being renewed, that would have caused me to torch the place or something. I wonder if premium-grade gasoline makes a better "eternal flame"....
3) Yay Dover, PA! Any judge that calls out Creationists for being liars is OK in my book. What better way to show Christians1 that they're wrong than by pointing out that they're liars. Ha!
1: Now I don't mean to say that Christians are wrong, just these particular Christians. WWJD? Not lie under oath to further His agenda, that's what!
The first hint Dale Airsman got that his morning's chores might end badly was the unusual growl from Charlie, a 4-year old llama.
The noise graduated to a high-pitched squeal, whereupon Charlie spit, flattened his ears back and bared his teeth, including the three sets of razor-sharp "fighting teeth," which llamas use to rip the scrotum from male competitors in the wild.
The emphasis on that sentence is mine.
To me, there can be no clearer evidence for Intelligent Design than this; having teeth specially suited for scrotum removal could not happen by accident*. Most intelligent design. Ever.
Well, designing mosquitos to be attracted to people infected with malaria is a pretty good design too.
Here's the rest of the article, where you can see pictures of these special teeth, but if you're hoping Mr. Airsman got his nuts bitten off, you'll be disappointed.